Is there any work being done on DCS BS?

[CE_Mikemonster]

Out of interest, what exactly are people hoping to be able to acheive flying a Ka-50 in the same server as an A-10?

 

On opposing sides it seems a bit pointless. And as a co-op, well.. What would you gain from being one the same side?

[GGTharos]

All the resources I'm familiar with, state, that helicopter pilot is not totally helpless and easy prey for a jet fighter. I've tested some of these ideas in Longbow 2 and Enemy Engaged and they indeed worked!

 

Real life has shown that not to be true when faced with modern fighters employing modern weapons - helicopters incorporating state of the art threat detection and counter-measures can survive. Helicopters that do not are most likely plain screwed.

And if the fighter comes in employing a gun - helicopters don't get to dodge.

 

I'm curious, how it would be with DCS quality and attention to details. I don't expect helo to be a threat to a fighter (however heatseekers could change that to some degree), but when skillfully flown, I don't expect it to be only a prey. At least not an easy one.

 

You aren't getting heat seekers, but they wouldn't help a lot - 'some degree' is correct. The Ka-50 lacks the ability to out-detect a fighter.

But yes, due to some radar modeling inaccuracies primarily and due to pilot effort secondarily (because most pilots are likely not going to bother learning how to deal with preventing being detected by a fighter) s Ka-50 won't be completely helpless when it comes to surviving. The trick is to hide, hide, hide, including from radars you aren't being warned about. This means longer routes and flight times and flying particular profiles. Once a fighter finds you, if he has no other distraction and there's nowhere for you to duck away and escape, you're pretty much hosed.

 

Think about tanks in DCS. They are no longer totally easy prey, as they used to be in previous sims and if they could deploy smoke grenades, they would become even harder nut to crack. Add to this smartly placed area defence assets and you have a problem even with a small platoon.

 

Not quite the same thing. ;)

You're not facing a fighter with an AH-64D here, you're facing it with a Ka-50. A flanker or eagle can lock you up from 40000' and drop a radar missile on you from 20nm away and you will never know.

[GGTharos]

Helicopters are far better at dealing with precision strikes against personnel and massed fires against armed vehicles than an A-10, just typically. The C can out-detect the Ka-50 easily and provide target data, acting as an AFAC while dropping weapons from high altitude on SHORAD threats. Essentially, if you had an armored column traveling under SAM cover, you can have the A-10C kick down the door and have the helos go in and mop up.

 

I realize that this doesn't play well with people's tendency to go in and wipe the map clean of targets in their one single plane - I mean, being restricted to a single mission and target? Why do one thing well when you can do everything with some semblance of success? Oh, the horror!!! ;)

 

Out of interest, what exactly are people hoping to be able to acheive flying a Ka-50 in the same server as an A-10?

 

On opposing sides it seems a bit pointless. And as a co-op, well.. What would you gain from being one the same side?

[H-street]

Out of interest, what exactly are people hoping to be able to acheive flying a Ka-50 in the same server as an A-10?

 

On opposing sides it seems a bit pointless. And as a co-op, well.. What would you gain from being one the same side?

 

Think big picture, A10C + Ka50 + whatever comes out in the future = the Digital Combat Simulator.

 

its been beaten to death around here but Falcon 4.0's integration of anonymous units is sortof what i would envision, only with the helicopters you have an added sense of Combat integration (where with Falcon its only planes).

 

The end result being a multiplayer co-op war campaign where different types of assets are employed on teh same battlefield, whether its planes, helos, armor etc..

 

I know in falcon i enjoy jumping from different squadrons and missions.

 

imagine a campaign where you could take your A10C on a mission, next mission you take your Ka50 etc.. etc.. now imagine in multiplayer where your A10C squadron would have to coordinate an attack with a Ka50 squadron (all player controlled) etc.. then addon the future planes that ED wnats to add and you can see where this is going

[liotczik]

Real life has shown that not to be true when faced with modern fighters employing modern weapons - helicopters incorporating state of the art threat detection and counter-measures can survive. Helicopters that do not are most likely plain screwed.

And if the fighter comes in employing a gun - helicopters don't get to dodge.

 

Of course :) I've shot down enough helos, while flying for "the dark side", to be perfectly aware of this. On the other hand, they were flown by not really smart AI. Still, in certain conditions, even they were able to escape in one piece, so it is possible is some situations (and by 'certain conditions' I don't mean, after I was 'winchester'). It's just like evading missiles - sometimes it works and sometimes does not.

 

You aren't getting heat seekers, but they wouldn't help a lot - 'some degree' is correct.

 

Maybe after first Ka-50 mods show up ;) Even now there is a switch on collective for A2A missiles, only it's not used. On the other hand I'd prefer to hide, instead of trying to find out, how big that degree is.

 

The Ka-50 lacks the ability to out-detect a fighter.

But yes, due to some radar modeling inaccuracies primarily and due to pilot effort secondarily (because most pilots are likely not going to bother learning how to deal with preventing being detected by a fighter) s Ka-50 won't be completely helpless when it comes to surviving. The trick is to hide, hide, hide, including from radars you aren't being warned about. This means longer routes and flight times and flying particular profiles. Once a fighter finds you, if he has no other distraction and there's nowhere for you to duck away and escape, you're pretty much hosed.

 

So, 1 on 1, still it depends on both pilots' skills and surroundings. I've been able to repeatedly outmaneuver badly flown Zero while flying P-39 on the edge (Sturmovik 1946, although I'm fully aware how that looked like over Pacific during the war). Helicopters are sneaky by their nature and not all jet pilots are going to bother playing hide and seek low in the weeds. Sometimes it's enough to evade for some time, to discourage the pursuer by making him bored. Also I don't understand, why everyone is waiting for helos like a cat for a mouse. There is no glory in killing poor slow rotorheads, try someone equal to you - that's a challenge! Or try yourself to fly the Shark properly :P

 

Another thing is, while more realistic radar modelling will help with detecting, I suppose that flying jet fighter in DCS won't be as easy as is in Lomac and that - at least at first - could give Shark pilots a slight advantage. Tell me, how many of you bothered to read Shark's manual? There is a reason, why pilot training takes years. The closer we get to the reality, the more training and knowledge we require to operate out digital aircraft to their full capabilities.

 

You're not facing a fighter with an AH-64D here, you're facing it with a Ka-50. A flanker or eagle can lock you up from 40000' and drop a radar missile on you from 20nm away and you will never know.

 

That's the most valid point - without RWR and jammers, I'm busted here. That is, until some more modern helo or modded Shark appears ;) Another thing is, that while surely they can lock me up, it's not certain, that they will do so. Many new pilots have trouble detecting even high altitude fast targets. Also they can't seek all the map at once.

 

Out of interest, what exactly are people hoping to be able to acheive flying a Ka-50 in the same server as an A-10?

 

On opposing sides it seems a bit pointless. And as a co-op, well.. What would you gain from being one the same side?

 

Actually it would be quite interesting. Imagine that the helicopter flight is the goal of the mission for both sides. One is protecting them in co-op and the other try to prevent helos from like attacking their ground forces. Both escorting your friends (instead of nameless and non flexible AI) and fighting smart and unpredictable enemy (instead of predictable and schematic AI) would contribute to better experience for everyone. Actually joint multi platform missions, with different tasks for both sides, would be more realistic and immersive, than BVR/dogfight/tank busting only skirmishes.

 

I just hope, that not every jet pilot has some kind of grudge against helos and will gladly lend a helpful hand, while blowing up threating enemies from the sky :)

[GGTharos]

Of course :) I've shot down enough helos, while flying for "the dark side", to be perfectly aware of this. On the other hand, they were flown by not really smart AI. Still, in certain conditions, even they were able to escape in one piece, so it is possible is some situations (and by 'certain conditions' I don't mean, after I was 'winchester'). It's just like evading missiles - sometimes it works and sometimes does not.

 

AI doesn't count - I mentioned RL at any rate, and you will have an advantage over RL. Namely, you'll be able to hide in the notch vs an eagle, which is something an RL helicopter cannot do.

 

 

Maybe after first Ka-50 mods show up ;) Even now there is a switch on collective for A2A missiles, only it's not used. On the other hand I'd prefer to hide, instead of trying to find out, how big that degree is.

 

What mods? ;) Yes, there's a switch, but it isn't even used in RL. There are some doubts as to whether it is even wired.

The degree is kinda like this ... face a fighter pilot with a crew, you die. I mean, he has everything he needs to find you unless you want to sit there and hide forever - in that case no one gets anything.

Now, face someone who just likes to eff around at low altitude, guess his route, land on a rooftop and keep an eye out. He's gonna come out flying across your nose down a canyon or something, you lift off, turn the nose and plug him. In this situation an R-73 makes all the difference, but realize you've just engaged someone who really doesn't get it, IMHO.

 

 

So, 1 on 1, still it depends on both pilots' skills and surroundings. I've been able to repeatedly outmaneuver badly flown Zero while flying P-39 on the edge (Sturmovik 1946, although I'm fully aware how that looked like over Pacific during the war). Helicopters are sneaky by their nature and not all jet pilots are going to bother playing hide and seek low in the weeds. Sometimes it's enough to evade for some time, to discourage the pursuer by making him bored. Also I don't understand, why everyone is waiting for helos like a cat for a mouse. There is no glory in killing poor slow rotorheads, try someone equal to you - that's a challenge! Or try yourself to fly the Shark properly :P

 

No, it has nothing to do with skill - or rather, if you're just facing someone who can't fight, and you're already determined to fight and you have a plan, you're likely to win. This is how it works (but the ground pounders never believe me, with some notable exceptions, and they have the kills to brag about ;) )

If you run into someone who knows how to use their fighter, you're plain hosed. You can't run, you probably can't really hide, and you can't really evade anything he throws at you. The first time we tested A-10A vs. Ka-50 the results were telling: Although the Ka-50 pilot was also well versed in A2A, he never saw the A-10 coming, and even though I missed (I suck, I know :P ) he never saw me attacking and re-attacking either. He just saw 30mm tearing up the ground around him, then his heli. And yes, he was looking for me. I just stayed on top of him where he a) couldn't see me and b) couldn't do anything about it. That's how hosed you are if a fighter finds you and latches on.

 

Again, this is BARRING mistakes and other distractions.

 

Another thing is, while more realistic radar modelling will help with detecting, I suppose that flying jet fighter in DCS won't be as easy as is in Lomac and that - at least at first - could give Shark pilots a slight advantage. Tell me, how many of you bothered to read Shark's manual? There is a reason, why pilot training takes years. The closer we get to the reality, the more training and knowledge we require to operate out digital aircraft to their full capabilities.

 

Nah, flying fighters is easy. Try a Su-25. That thing is a pig compared to a fighter, even the A - and fighters, being poster children for usability (At least on the western side) have a 'track-designate-aim-shoot' attack process which is about as simple as the one in LO when it comes to fighting someone. Yes, there might be 'steps' in between, but for the most part they are minor and non-issues as far as I can tell.

 

I think you experience the same in the Ka-50. You're already set up for combat when you enter your combat zone, so most of what you do is detect-designate-line-up-pickle.

 

That's the most valid point - without RWR and jammers, I'm busted here. That is, until some more modern helo or modded Shark appears ;) Another thing is, that while surely they can lock me up, it's not certain, that they will do so. Many new pilots have trouble detecting even high altitude fast targets. Also they can't seek all the map at once.

 

Right, I wouldn't be counting on survival due to opposition n00bness ;)

 

I just hope, that not every jet pilot has some kind of grudge against helos and will gladly lend a helpful hand, while blowing up threating enemies from the sky :)

 

Personally if you are on the opposing side and you are flying, you are a target for me, unless you're doing something un-interesting and I have more interesting things to do (shoot down bandits that are closer to my ground guys, sweep against enemy fighters, etc). In general flying very carefully in FC2 is how you can survive in a helo against a fighter.

[liotczik]

Of course, you're right. But do you really had to take all hope away from me, in such a cruel way? :D No matter the odds, I won't go down - not without a fight :P

 

Given all the unpredictability of a battlefield and possible combinations of events, I'd still say, that helo has some chances. Not much maybe, but on the other hand I've never tried to prove, that attack helo is a match for a fighter, because it is not. That brings an interesting matter of air superiority to our MP equations, as helicopter pilots will need it to perform their tasks in relative safety from enemy fighters. And allied fighter pilots will get actual purpose for their kills gathering. It's only for the better, as it moves us closer to the battlefield simulation, but also makes smart design of missions even more of importance.

 

You were able to nail Shark with A-10, mainly because you were also looking for him, as he was looking for you. If you didn't knew in the first place, that he is in the area, he might have slipped unnoticed. Another thing is, A-10C is clearly more advanced than Ka-50. I wonder, how that would be with AH-64 vs Su-25 (not T). By the way, it's nice to know, that works on A-10 are so much advanced ;)

 

I never count on opposition being lame. I just take such possibility into account and exploit when applicable :) There are examples in history, when smaller but well organized forces beat bigger ones, who hadn't used their potential to the full.

[GGTharos]

Of course, you're right. But do you really had to take all hope away from me, in such a cruel way? :D No matter the odds, I won't go down - not without a fight :P

 

Good!

 

Given all the unpredictability of a battlefield and possible combinations of events, I'd still say, that helo has some chances. Not much maybe, but on the other hand I've never tried to prove, that attack helo is a match for a fighter, because it is not. That brings an interesting matter of air superiority to our MP equations, as helicopter pilots will need it to perform their tasks in relative safety from enemy fighters. And allied fighter pilots will get actual purpose for their kills gathering. It's only for the better, as it moves us closer to the battlefield simulation, but also makes smart design of missions even more of importance.

 

As I said, the helo has some chances to survive - mainly through careful flying to remain undetected and not become a target :)

 

You were able to nail Shark with A-10, mainly because you were also looking for him, as he was looking for you. If you didn't knew in the first place, that he is in the area, he might have slipped unnoticed. Another thing is, A-10C is clearly more advanced than Ka-50. I wonder, how that would be with AH-64 vs Su-25 (not T). By the way, it's nice to know, that works on A-10 are so much advanced ;)

 

I was looking for him, but I also knew where he'd be going: To my armored column. So, having no advanced means to spot him and having great difficulty to spot him visually, I had to wait for him to attack unfortunately. After the first shot I knew exactly where he was.

 

Also note I did this with A-10A, not A-10C. The 10C has it much easier: He doesn't have to wait for you to shoot or go low, he can just use the pod ... and then datalink you to all the other A-10C's :D

 

I would not fight a 64 against a su-25. you have a slightly better chance with the gun there, but for the most part, the 25 can control the engagement, even though the 64 can actually out-detect it. Once the 64 is sighted, the same tactics with the gun will work on it as the A-10A v Ka-50.

 

Now, in reality an attack plane might be limited by ROE (cannot descend below certain altitude) which may help you out, likewise some aircaft can make steeper dives for attack than others.

 

I never count on opposition being lame. I just take such possibility into account and exploit when applicable :) There are examples in history, when smaller but well organized forces beat bigger ones, who hadn't used their potential to the full.

 

Well, yes :D It's just that this isn't helpful to the comparison. You want to plan for the guy who knows what he's doing, if he doesn't, bonus for you :)

[liotczik]

What if you had several armored columns to look after? I imagine, you would send wingmans to them. But if it was a simulation of a larger battle, then Shark would have some escort with him, at least that's what I'd like to do.

 

ROE are another thing, that many sim pilots are not familiar with of aware of. For example, BVR in Lomac would be so different, if they had to first visually ID, what markings are on that dot on their scope ;)

 

If AH-64 is able to outdetect Su-25, then it's a step ahead of him. At that point he can either hide/move away or prepare a nice ambush, though it's less likely scenario. No matter the case, I'd say it's a big advantage at the moment. Yes, I've tried shooting down helicopters from Su-25 and by no means it was an easy task, because they fly so low and I had to shoot from a distance and then pull up, in order to avoid the ground. Also they maneuvered in some really clever way, exactly as they should. I got them in the end, but on a battlefield, the time, they bought themselves by doing this, could be enough to make me intercepted by some local fighters on a CAP.

 

As for the skilled/lame opposition, I prefer to take both possibilities into account. Sometimes it can be more distracting, when opponent does something stupid, than clever. Why? Because when you see a skillful move, you know, that there's some right stuff behind the stick and you're more focused, on what you're doing. But when you see a bad move, you'll never sure, if it was a real mishap, or some kind of clever trap, calculated on dropping your guard and striking right after you're relaxed and convinced, that it would be an easy kill. Simple and naive tricks bring the best results :)

[GGTharos]

What if you had several armored columns to look after? I imagine, you would send wingmans to them. But if it was a simulation of a larger battle, then Shark would have some escort with him, at least that's what I'd like to do.

 

I wouldn't worry about it. I'll be dealing with my mission. As far as escorts go, this cuts both ways. Realize that, again, if you run into a fighter, he can drop an ARH on you on a whim and you just won't know - all the while fighting another fighter. But yes, like I mentioned before, if there are other distractions, it's much less likely for the helicopter to get plinked.

 

ROE are another thing, that many sim pilots are not familiar with of aware of. For example, BVR in Lomac would be so different, if they had to first visually ID, what markings are on that dot on their scope ;)

 

Yes, it would have been different, esp. since there's only one aircraft in LOFC that is capable of doing EID and BVR without VID/AWACS confirmation ;)

 

If AH-64 is able to outdetect Su-25, then it's a step ahead of him. At that point he can either hide/move away or prepare a nice ambush, though it's less likely scenario. No matter the case, I'd say it's a big advantage at the moment.

 

An advantage in hiding, yes. A heli isn't going to ambush you, he doesn't have anything to do that with typically, and he's got other business in mind, including looking for your wingmen if he spots you.

 

Yes, I've tried shooting down helicopters from Su-25 and by no means it was an easy task, because they fly so low and I had to shoot from a distance and then pull up, in order to avoid the ground. Also they maneuvered in some really clever way, exactly as they should. I got them in the end, but on a battlefield, the time, they bought themselves by doing this, could be enough to make me intercepted by some local fighters on a CAP.

 

Either your aproach isn't good (shooting from a distance is the right way to do it, yes) or your aim is shaky :)

 

As for the skilled/lame opposition, I prefer to take both possibilities into account. Sometimes it can be more distracting, when opponent does something stupid, than clever. Why? Because when you see a skillful move, you know, that there's some right stuff behind the stick and you're more focused, on what you're doing. But when you see a bad move, you'll never sure, if it was a real mishap, or some kind of clever trap, calculated on dropping your guard and striking right after you're relaxed and convinced, that it would be an easy kill. Simple and naive tricks bring the best results :)

 

How do you know they aren't simple and entirely deliberate? ;)

[isoul]

So now the convresation turned to Jet VS Helo again... (I think its already talked too much but since you keep up I will place my arguments too).

 

OK a fighter(or even attack airplane) pitted against a helicopter would probably end up with a helo in pieces or both participants turning around and leave. A fighter have a lot more means to detect/engage/evade a helicopter!

 

But think of the bigger picture... battlefield is not a fighting pit! Situations are more complex than we may imagine... Its a multi-threat environment, not a helo against fighter! While a fighter packs sensors/BVR weapons/ECM the helo don't BUT there are other things for a fighter pilot to be concerned such as 1) Enemy ground based radars & AWACS to warn the helo 2) Possible AAA and SAMs(if fighter flies over hostile territory) to threaten the fighter 3) Enemy fighter CAP.

 

You never send one asset alone (be it a fighter, a helo or a tank) in a multi-threat environment. In case the enemy achieved air superiority in the whole theater of war you just don't send air assets unless you are absolutely sure that something(be it ignorance, no available assets etc. etc.) will hinder the enemy responce.

 

As GGTharos and others puts it, many will think that helicopters don't have a place in modern conflicts or that a helicopter is only usefull after air superiority is established. The truth isn't exactly like that...

 

In modern conflicts that US participated, from Vietnam War to recent Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts, the US doctrine was to achieve air superiority(something that they learned from WWII) and then strike ground targets while interdicting enemy air activity(if any). That proved to be a good strategy since most of their adversaries had a small air power compared to US/NATO and only a few(after military analysis) had a problem-free(in means of technology, homogenity and standarization) force to oppose massive air raids. Still in other conflicts were air superiority couldn't be established, like Falklands War, transport helicopters were used and in many nation's military doctrines the use of helicopters is included even if air superiority isn't fully achieved(or is achieved for a short time).

 

Keep in mind that in a conflict between more balanced forces both sides will utilize fighter escort/patrols along the front line so both sides will be busy doing other things rather than hunting down helicopters. Even if the enemy judges that a couple of helicopters are a worthy target to engage, the last flies sorties in such a way that only aircraft in the imminent area can respond (but bear in mind that if an aircraft is near your target area you won't send a helicopter, or it won't be alone).

Edited January 29, 2010 by isoul

[Renato71]

Pardon me, I have to ask for clarification on something from few pages back....

 

I know EtherealN is moderator, but I have to ask where is confirmation that A-10 and Ka-50 are standalone, meaning "you do NOT need to buy, install, or activate DCS:BS to install and play DCS:A-10, both offline and online"? Where did this came from?

 

And, is this going to be practise with future modules?

[GGTharos]

Yes, this is how it is going to be. All DCS modules are intended to be standalone - ie. you do NOT need to buy the entire DCS series (but ED would be greatful and pleased if you did!) to play with others.

 

If you don't want to buy the A-10C module, you'll still be able to play with your A-10C owning friends. Even if they didn't bother buying the Ka-50 module :)

[GGTharos]

So now the convresation turned to Jet VS Helo again... (I think its already talked too much but since you keep up I will place my arguments too).

 

Woot :)

 

But think of the bigger picture... battlefield is not a fighting pit! Situations are more complex than we may imagine... Its a multi-threat environment, not a helo against fighter! While a fighter packs sensors/BVR weapons/ECM the helo don't BUT there are other things for a fighter pilot to be concerned such as 1) Enemy ground based radars & AWACS to warn the helo 2) Possible AAA and SAMs(if fighter flies over hostile territory) to threaten the fighter 3) Enemy fighter CAP.

 

The problem here is that thinking of the bigger picture gets us away from the actual discussion of how to deal with a fighter when you're flying a chopper :)

 

As GGTharos and others puts it, many will think that helicopters don't have a place in modern conflicts or that a helicopter is only usefull after air superiority is established. The truth isn't exactly like that...

 

Actually I don't think I said that exactly. I mentioned that typically helicopters will operate when Air Superiority is established, but that luxury will not be always available. Take a fulda gap scenario for example - they'd probably be seeing A2A engagements overhead. But we're not terribly interested in this scenario because actually learning how to cope with a fighter is a 1v1 deal.

 

Keep in mind that in a conflict between more balanced forces both sides will utilize fighter escort/patrols along the front line so both sides will be busy doing other things rather than hunting down helicopters. Even if the enemy judges that a couple of helicopters are a worthy target to engage, the last flies sorties in such a way that only aircraft in the imminent area can respond (but bear in mind that if an aircraft is near your target area you won't send a helicopter, or it won't be alone).

 

Which is why I have always said 'barring other distractions' ... but also realize, if you show up as a blip on my radar 10nm away along with a fighter of your side near you, I have no problems slinging an AMRAAM at you, too, and it's not like you're going to go anywhere where it won't reach you. If you don't know it's coming, if you're not flying a careful pattern to keep yourself safe, you're toast just like that, despite your cover. Me? I accomplished my mission (shot you down, thus saving x friendly vehicles, made the other fighter turn around and burn fuel to dodge my 120, and meanwhile I'm getting out of dodge myself).

 

So being in a heli - especially the shark, where you don't know what radars are looking at you (seriously ... 20-30nm shot from high on. You will never see, hear, or suspect its coming) you need to proactively fly routes and profiles that will protect you.

This means no 350kph drives straight to the target, lengthy perpendicular-to-threat-axis-maneuvers, asking your air guys if the air is erm, well, clear, etc etc. You REALLY have your work cut out for you, top cover or no.

[liotczik]

Realize that, again, if you run into a fighter, he can drop an ARH on you on a whim and you just won't know

 

Technically he's able to do that, however only if he's looking for a helo, with radar look down mode or on low alt. Besides there are ways to fool radars.

 

Either your aproach isn't good (shooting from a distance is the right way to do it, yes) or your aim is shaky :)

 

Neither of the two :P Simply my LCD screen isn't the biggest available and these sneaky eggbeaters blend more than well into terrain with their camouflage.

 

How do you know they aren't simple and entirely deliberate? ;)

 

I'm strong in the Force :D By carefull observation of the enemy and a lot of practice you can judge from his moves, how good is he - that is an opinion of WWII fighter ace and pre-war fighter instructor pilot (18 kills, survived the war, never shot down), and I subscribe under it. Also air combat is all about making less mistakes, than the opponent and proper use of his errors, right? ;)

 

But think of the bigger picture... battlefield is not a fighting pit! Situations are more complex than we may imagine... Its a multi-threat environment, not a helo against fighter!

 

And that's why I don't think helos are totally doomed :) Another considerations worth mentioning are how advanced the helo is, does it have modern electronics, are we talking about real world vs simulation, single player vs multi and so on, as all of them will have an impact on helicopter survivability in a discussed scenario. Helicopters can be beaten by fighters, sure. But that doesn't make them totally useless or suicidal to fly. Helos are not worse, they are only different, and have their own applications.

 

Still I don't know what possessed Russians not to equip Ka-50 with RWR...

[GGTharos]

Technically he's able to do that, however only if he's looking for a helo, with radar look down mode or on low alt. Besides there are ways to fool radars.

 

No. Look-down is covered as a matter of course because guess where all the new guys and strikers fly. Yep. You aren't going to get overlooked if you aren't taking care. And there aren't really any 'other ways' for you to fool the radar save for notching if you're already on the radar screen ;) Not in LO anyway.

 

 

Neither of the two :P Simply my LCD screen isn't the biggest available and these sneaky eggbeaters blend more than well into terrain with their camouflage.

 

Well, okay - that I admit is an issue. I recall shooting at a shadow once. It was embarassing.

 

I'm strong in the Force :D By carefull observation of the enemy and a lot of practice you can judge from his moves, how good is he - that is an opinion of WWII fighter ace and pre-war fighter instructor pilot (18 kills, survived the war, never shot down), and I subscribe under it. Also air combat is all about making less mistakes, than the opponent and proper use of his errors, right? ;)

 

This is a gross oversimplification and lacks meaning, so I will try to give you one of my own (And don't take offense - I am pedantic):

Given two pilots with equal skill, the one with the superior aircraft will win. The helicopter is a multiple-inferior aircraft. It will be out-maneuvered, out-energied, and out-shot by any fighter out there.

 

 

And that's why I don't think helos are totally doomed :) Another considerations worth mentioning are how advanced the helo is, does it have modern electronics, are we talking about real world vs simulation, single player vs multi and so on, as all of them will have an impact on helicopter survivability in a discussed scenario. Helicopters can be beaten by fighters, sure. But that doesn't make them totally useless or suicidal to fly. Helos are not worse, they are only different, and have their own applications.

 

I didn't say any of that ;) I agree that helos have their place. I'm just trying to lower expecations of people who think they can easily survive a confrontation with a fighter. I'll say it again: Most of the time, you won't even KNOW a fighter is attacking you until you're hit!

 

Still I don't know what possessed Russians not to equip Ka-50 with RWR...

 

Dudes with iglas don't carry radar. RWRs were needed elsewhere.

[Renato71]

Yes, this is how it is going to be. All DCS modules are intended to be standalone - ie. you do NOT need to buy the entire DCS series (but ED would be greatful and pleased if you did!) to play with others.

 

If you don't want to buy the A-10C module, you'll still be able to play with your A-10C owning friends. Even if they didn't bother buying the Ka-50 module :)

 

Ah... Ehm... Uh... I bought Ka-50 under impression that it will be needed for later and interesting modules.

I would be grateful for (omg, here comes my list again) MiG-21, 23, 25, 27, Su-15, 17 or Mi-24, 28 or any European aircraft. When will they be available? I'm sure ED will be pleased if I buy all modules, but I'm not pleased with the choice of modules. Why should I support that?

 

If I could only add a working localization folder, instead of overwriting existing localization(s), and even that is not working in full any more :(

 

C'mon GG, if you say that ED needs my support, I could do more good with WORKING localization, instead of embarrassing myself constantly cos it is not working or is crashing the game.

Whats the joke with 4 lang editions that need individual patched (that need additional and individual hotfixes), instead of making one international edition with all langs that are fully translated and blessed by ED? Like in Linux localizations?

If FC2 is going to have several langs like DCS, and there will be no support to add new lang seamlessly, I will have to feel that my yesterdays payment (of not a small amount!) for hosting of a website devoted to FC/DCS support, is a waste of money.

[GGTharos]

Ah... Ehm... Uh... I bought Ka-50 under impression that it will be needed for later and interesting modules.

I would be grateful for (omg, here comes my list again) MiG-21, 23, 25, 27, Su-15, 17 or Mi-24, 28 or any European aircraft. When will they be available? I'm sure ED will be pleased if I buy all modules, but I'm not pleased with the choice of modules. Why should I support that?

 

When a military asks for a trainer sim for such aircraft.

 

If I could only add a working localization folder, instead of overwriting existing localization(s), and even that is not working in full any more :(

 

C'mon GG, if you say that ED needs my support, I could do more good with WORKING localization, instead of embarrassing myself constantly cos it is not working or is crashing the game.

Whats the joke with 4 lang editions that need individual patched (that need additional and individual hotfixes), instead of making one international edition with all langs that are fully translated and blessed by ED? Like in Linux localizations?

If FC2 is going to have several langs like DCS, and there will be no support to add new lang seamlessly, I will have to feel that my yesterdays payment (of not a small amount!) for hosting of a website devoted to FC/DCS support, is a waste of money.

 

I guess I have to repeat yet again that the devs have a lot of work to do on many fronts; improvements will happen but they will happen bit by but. If you reported the localization problem, I expect that it is on the internal wishlist. I don't know what priority it may have.

[Renato71]

When a military asks for a trainer sim for such aircraft.

 

OK, I'm not military. I'm commercial. Where is it advertised "Welcome to forum where we sell byproducts of another work". Is that what you are saying? If so, then place such definition in forum/website banner, and I will not have any requests at all.

Nor will my support be needed or asked for. As I'm not military ;)

 

I guess I have to repeat yet again that the devs have a lot of work to do on many fronts; improvements will happen but they will happen bit by but. If you reported the localization problem, I expect that it is on the internal wishlist. I don't know what priority it may have.

 

Their work in this field will be SIMPLIFIED. There will be no need to address each lang patching separately. Take a look at any Linux localization - programs are developing regardless of translation project, and those langs that satisfy certain criteria are included in official releases, without having any impact on the program itself or developer. Apart from occasional nags form translator "Please, make this localizable" :)

There is nothing simpler to do then - to do NOTHING at all :)

No release will have to be delayed, and you can always shoot the pianist ;)

 

Problem is known (my sig), and is ignored by devs. In fact, locale implementation is getting harder and harder with each DCS:BS patch, like someone is making intentional effort to prevent additional localizations :(

Or if someone is trying NOT to make this simulation to become a commercial product, but to keep it inside "military borders"? Odd, but this never occurred to me until your comment!

Wags was MORE then helpful in moral support, but this is not enough :(

[GGTharos]

OK, I'm not military. I'm commercial. Where is it advertised "Welcome to forum where we sell byproducts of another work". Is that what you are saying? If so, then place such definition in forum/website banner, and I will not have any requests at all.

Nor will my support be needed or asked for. As I'm not military ;)

 

I'm sure commercial counts for something. The fact that the next module and a lot of requirements are dictated by the non-entertainment side of the business was quite up-front. That isn't to say the community isn't taken into account.

 

Their work in this field will be SIMPLIFIED. There will be no need to address each lang patching separately. Take a look at any Linux localization - programs are developing regardless of translation project, and those langs that satisfy certain criteria are included in official releases, without having any impact on the program itself or developer. Apart from occasional nags form translator "Please, make this localizable" :)

There is nothing simpler to do then - to do NOTHING at all :)

No release will have to be delayed, and you can always shoot the pianist ;)

 

Problem is known (my sig), and is ignored by devs. In fact, locale implementation is getting harder and harder with each DCS:BS patch, like someone is making intentional effort to prevent additional localizations :(

Or if someone is trying NOT to make this simulation to become a commercial product, but to keep it inside "military borders"? Odd, but this never occurred to me until your comment!

Wags was MORE then helpful in moral support, but this is not enough :(

Like I said, stuff is done bit by bit. I really don't know what more to tell you - this is the way it is. In every development iteration some things get more attention, some less. I can bring up the localization issue directly with the devs again, it's no problem.

[isoul]

The problem here is that thinking of the bigger picture gets us away from the actual discussion of how to deal with a fighter when you're flying a chopper :)

 

Only one way actually exists in how to deal with fighters and that is concealment! Avoid detection by keeping an obstacle between you and your hunter.

 

Don't make me write huge post for backing up my argument!

 

Ah... Ehm... Uh... I bought Ka-50 under impression that it will be needed for later and interesting modules.

I would be grateful for (omg, here comes my list again) MiG-21, 23, 25, 27, Su-15, 17 or Mi-24, 28 or any European aircraft. When will they be available? I'm sure ED will be pleased if I buy all modules, but I'm not pleased with the choice of modules. Why should I support that?

 

1) If you weren't interested in Ka-50 why have you bought DCS:BS now?

2) What if I am interested in the 4th module of DCS? Why should I buy the first three ones?

3) No military contract=no data for ED, with no data the quality of modeling wouldn't be the same as in Ka-50! ED never said that it will model all aircraft or many aircraft.

4) Support modules cause is cheaper if you don't want all modules! Already DCS:BS module was cheaper compared to other games in my country!(DCS:BS=28euros while most games are at 40,50 or even close to 60 sometimes)

Edited January 29, 2010 by isoul

[GGTharos]

Only one way actually exists in how to deal with fighters and that is concealment! Avoid detection by keeping an obstacle between you and your hunter.

 

Or flying in the notch, yep - basically, stay off the radar.

 

 

Typically helicopters are used once Air Superiority is established according to US doctrine. US doctrines may differ largely from what other nations use. For example, in most Balkan regions mountainous terrain makes up for the hard-to-achieve Air Superiority. In Iraq this would be bullshit!

 

When you don't have a choice, you don't have a choice.

 

 

The CAP aircraft won't be flying by my side, it will be placed between you and me. You ll have to face him and his AAMs before shooting at me. The helo will be gone before your engagement with the CAP aircraft ends.

 

part a) Are we playing the same game? ;) It doesn't really happen that way in LOFC.

part b) Not a chance. How far can you fly in two minutes? Not far enough.

 

 

Simplistic thinking! Think it the other way around :

1) Helo should always fly in cover or not fly at all.

2) You won't know either the helo is approaching you ground forces position.

3) Once you learn that a helo is attacking you ground units the time window to react will be so narrow that probably the helo will be gone.

To backup my sayings I 'll tell you this. Who would stand in front of a tank's aiming scopes? Why a helo should go close to you and be visible to your radar?

 

1) Right.

2) Actually yes, I will. I'll be looking for it.

3) My attack window is quite large, actually, barring other distractions.

 

Finally, you have no means of knowing when you are visible to my radar save for planning a good route.

 

Why I shouldn't fly "defensively"... we play with live ammo! In war you don't walk on your toes, you walk on your knees!

 

My point is, that's going to be the minority of people. Most people will rush straight to target and be a big blip on radar.

 

And one last thing... If helos are in so great disadvantage why people still use them? Don't we miss something? Since I haven't served as attack helicopter crew or anything close to that and I dunno details but AH-64 was designed for hitting Soviet tanks in European battlefields, how helpless could it be against A2A threats?

 

As I said, helos have their place. But once more I'll point out that you're again straying away from the 1v1 scenario. Yes, things change once you throw in additional fighters, SAMs, etc, but that scenario is not interesting since you pretty much learn nothing from it when it comes to defending yourself against a fighter.

[Renato71]

1) If you weren't interested in Ka-50 why have you bought DCS:BS now?

Already answered. Its in the quote that you've made :)

 

2) What if I am interested in the 4th module of DCS? Why should I buy the first three ones?

At this moment, I have no reason to buy anything up until what I'm interested into. There are only promises and guarantees of delays. Considering the time taken to develop each module, simply, I will trully be too old for this by the time I get any return for my investment :(

And, as I said time and time again, I've already invested into FC/DCS more them most of the forum members here. Yesterday, I've paid 120 USD for domain/server hosting devoted to FC/DCS support and advertising, on top of all previous investments, TeamSpeak, giving away FC and DCS as gifts (which I have paid for!), workhours invested...

Forget assuming, less alone calling me cheap :mad:

 

3) No military contract=no data for ED, with no data the quality of modeling wouldn't be the same as in Ka-50! ED never said that it will model all aircraft or many aircraft.

I can live with less visual quality and without button covers, if the AI were any smarter and if damage models were properly modeled. It is a laugh when you sink Kuznecov with Vihors only, and when anti-radiation missile hits into chassis/waterline only.

 

4) Support modules cause is cheaper if you don't want all modules! Already DCS:BS module was cheaper compared to other games in my country!(DCS:BS=28euros while most games are at 40,50 or even close to 60 sometimes)

rotfl!

Sorry, I cannot afford that. I've already invested in other fields. Money spent. Read above.

 

BTW, market value for localization like DCS:BS is around 1000 EUR. Will YOU invest 1000 EUR into ED?

[liotczik]

No. Look-down is covered as a matter of course because guess where all the new guys and strikers fly. Yep. You aren't going to get overlooked if you aren't taking care. And there aren't really any 'other ways' for you to fool the radar save for notching if you're already on the radar screen ;) Not in LO anyway.

 

What about detection range and probability, against ground clutter, while jet is flying at his CAP altitude? Also I've read, that constantly alternating flight path and speed helps to blend into terrain and avoid radar detection - of course not always and everywhere, but it increases chances of avoiding detection. Another thing is flying low and slow, to be identified by radar as a ground vehicle, instead of a helo. The trick is not being on the radar scope in the first place ;) How about jammers used in a clever way? Radar is not a magic wand, but only a device (complicated and amazing but still only a mechanical device).

 

Also all you want, is to send active radar guided missile and it's over. OK, it's really deadly and I don't blame you for doing so :) What about SARH and IR then? What about denying gunshot by maneuvering perpendicular to and "under" the jet (even without jet being tied with ROE limitations)? I'd say, that the further away we go from active missiles, the more chances helicopter has.

 

Well, okay - that I admit is an issue. I recall shooting at a shadow once. It was embarassing.

 

Actually I consider good representation of camouflage as a neat feature of Lomac/DCS. As for the screen, with the recent addition of HOTAS + TrackIR I was able to somehow overcome this limitation, also I've enabled modified labels, so they show only dark ' at reasonable distances, to counter for AI exaggerated SA.

 

This is a gross oversimplification and lacks meaning, so I will try to give you one of my own (And don't take offense - I am pedantic):

Given two pilots with equal skill, the one with the superior aircraft will win. The helicopter is a multiple-inferior aircraft. It will be out-maneuvered, out-energied, and out-shot by any fighter out there.

 

Maybe, but it works for me and was tested in real combat (at least for dogfighting), with good results. Also I'm not so sure, that always better plane will win - it depends. Sure, jet fighter has a definite edge over helicopter, only because the difference in performance is so huge, but there are known cases of Bf-109 being shot down by Hurricanes, and I don't think here about surprise attacks from above. Better pilot was able to turn the odds in his favour, despite inferior aircraft. Also real engagements are more complicated and unpredictable, than theoretical 1 on 1 scenarios.

 

I'm just trying to lower expecations of people who think they can easily survive a confrontation with a fighter. I'll say it again: Most of the time, you won't even KNOW a fighter is attacking you until you're hit!

 

I've never said, that it will be easy - on the contrary :) I only insist, that it is possible to survive, although not always, not everywhere and not in every helicopter. One is certain, that RWR-less Shark, with poor pilot's view coverage and single crewmember has clearly less chances of doing so right from the start, that say UH-60 packed with electronics and at 4 pairs of Mk.I Eyeball, with way better view coverage.

 

RWRs were needed elsewhere.

 

LOOOL! "I'm sorry soldier, but you have to give away your helmet, bulletproof vest and boots, as they are needed elsewhere..." :D

 

Seriously, I have mixed feelings about it. On one hand, even US are now more into protecting helos from IR missiles and small arms and providing fixed wing SEAD/cover. Also the possibility for helos to encounter in combat radar equipped threats is currently minimal, for the tasks they are used for, so it seems to be a good idea to save money on unneeded and expensive equipment. On the other hand you'll never know, what could happen tomorrow and as such it would be wise to have that extra capabilities.

 

My point is, that's going to be the minority of people. Most people will rush straight to target and be a big blip on radar.

 

I can be pretty sneaky, believe me ;)

[GGTharos]

What about detection range and probability, against ground clutter, while jet is flying at his CAP altitude? Also I've read, that constantly alternating flight path and speed helps to blend into terrain and avoid radar detection - of course not always and everywhere, but it increases chances of avoiding detection. Another thing is flying low and slow, to be identified by radar as a ground vehicle, instead of a helo. The trick is not being on the radar scope in the first place ;) How about jammers used in a clever way? Radar is not a magic wand, but only a device (complicated and amazing but still only a mechanical device).

 

You don't -have- jammers.

You do have the convenience of RL not being modeled - RL A2A dection capability was 50nm of a LANDED helicopter because its rotors were spinning, and the weather wasn't so good either ;) You have the advantage of your rotors not being modeled this way, so you may enter the notch. But ... ground clutter? That has mainly been a non-issue for modern interceptors since - er well, a while now.

And yes, radar isn't magical, it's just pretty effective in its 90's incarnations - at least for F-15's ;)

 

Also all you want, is to send active radar guided missile and it's over. OK, it's really deadly and I don't blame you for doing so :) What about SARH and IR then? What about denying gunshot by maneuvering perpendicular to and "under" the jet (even without jet being tied with ROE limitations)? I'd say, that the further away we go from active missiles, the more chances helicopter has.

 

For all missiles, if you know they are coming you can do something about them. In all cases of radar weapons, in a look-down situation you can simple enter the notch and they will not track you. Against IRH, you can deploy flares.

 

My point here is that you will most often NOT know any of this is coming, so you must plan to deal with those pre-emptively (ie. not being shot at in the first place, as you yourself said earlier).

 

And yes, maneuvering against the jet like this will work where the pilot doesn't have steady aim, and a lot of people probably cannot handle the geometry and snapshot well. You can make it worse by flying sideways and thus presenting the smaller cross section (your front) and your gun to him.

If he comes down from high altitude though, you'll have a very very difficult fight on your hands. Basically all you have now is delay tactics; you need to get that fighter interested in something else:

 

A friendly fighter, or say, a SAM. The point here is, unless he loses sight of you (which CAN happen!) you can only delay the inevitable in most cases.

 

 

Actually I consider good representation of camouflage as a neat feature of Lomac/DCS. As for the screen, with the recent addition of HOTAS + TrackIR I was able to somehow overcome this limitation, also I've enabled modified labels, so they show only dark ' at reasonable distances, to counter for AI exaggerated SA.

 

Yes, I like the visuals - this is a good deal because you won't end up with people seeing the 'shark as a dot from 20km away and just toss a missile its way.

 

 

Maybe, but it works for me and was tested in real combat (at least for dogfighting), with good results. Also I'm not so sure, that always better plane will win - it depends. Sure, jet fighter has a definite edge over helicopter, only because the difference in performance is so huge, but there are known cases of Bf-109 being shot down by Hurricanes, and I don't think here about surprise attacks from above. Better pilot was able to turn the odds in his favour, despite inferior aircraft. Also real engagements are more complicated and unpredictable, than theoretical 1 on 1 scenarios.

 

Read what I said again. Given equal pilots, the better plane will win. The point here is that a heli's flight performance is so poor compared to a fighter that the fighter has all the advantages in this fight. All dogfighting is essentially dictated by this, barring surprise action:

The guy who makes the least mistakes wins.

In general a guy who is defensive and makes no mistakes will lose to the offensive guy who makes no mistakes. The offensive guy has to make some big ones to lose. This is compounded by aircraft performance. And to be clear, here I -only- care about aircraft performance. A pilot so green that he'll fly himself into the ground trying to gun you does not factor in - he's an interesting, but untilmately not useful example I think.

 

I've never said, that it will be easy - on the contrary :) I only insist, that it is possible to survive, although not always, not everywhere and not in every helicopter. One is certain, that RWR-less Shark, with poor pilot's view coverage and single crewmember has clearly less chances of doing so right from the start, that say UH-60 packed with electronics and at 4 pairs of Mk.I Eyeball, with way better view coverage.

 

And those 60's did go down :/

I didn't say survival is impossible. I'm just saying that once a fighter sights you, don't count on it - but I'm not saying pull the handles and get out, either, there's always a chance. It's just that it's slim once you enter that round of combat.

 

 

LOOOL! "I'm sorry soldier, but you have to give away your helmet, bulletproof vest and boots, as they are needed elsewhere..." :D

 

Well, look at where it served. It never entered service as a mainstay heli - they wouldn't accept it without improvements (including RWR, FLIR etc) until much later, where its role was to deal with basically insurgents, where an RWR is not needed.

 

Seriously, I have mixed feelings about it. On one hand, even US are now more into protecting helos from IR missiles and small arms and providing fixed wing SEAD/cover. Also the possibility for helos to encounter in combat radar equipped threats is currently minimal, for the tasks they are used for, so it seems to be a good idea to save money on unneeded and expensive equipment. On the other hand you'll never know, what could happen tomorrow and as such it would be wise to have that extra capabilities.

 

The US has always had some anti-IR missile protection on their helis in one form or another. The Apache has been the one with jammers and other funky things though, as it was expected it would encounter threats like SA-8, Tunguska, TOR, and others.

 

I can be pretty sneaky, believe me ;)

 

That is the ticket to survival ;)